More like good translations are good poetry that preserve a sense of the "spirit" of the original. Yet the best translators are poets in their own right, not merely translators. There is never an "invisible translator", especially for poetry.Originally Posted by mortalterror
Yes, a good translator must be "inventive", especially when he is dealing with two languages that are completely different .
Knowing the language itself is not enough . That's why I say that only poets or at least who has a poetic sense can deal with poetry.
I don't think the reader pays too much attention to the fact that it is a translated book. They don't say this is the translator, they say this is the author and the book itself. So, their evaluation of the author or the book might not be really fair.
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Discussing if only a poet can translate poetry is pointless. Once a person is translating poetry, he is writting poetry, therefore he is a poet. So, yes, only poets translate poetry. If he will continue writting poetry or wrote before, it is irrelevant.
I think it's the opposite.
Now, how can be argued that a translation must preserve the form if the language is a form? You are obviously breaking the form at some level. But, yes, it is another poem, translation is a creative process.
yeh, they are changing everything, breaking everything ; It's indeed another poem , another thing, yet they call it but its orginal name and orginal author!!
As being art and art must be preserved. True, but art is not solid, static. It is fluid, it is preserved and lost.
As for prose-poetry, they are not opposite or exclusive. Aforementioned Flaubert is a prose writer. So, I would not argue beyond it. Poetry here is the use of the language, not the form, right?
Yes, and that's why I mentionned both poetry and poetic language in the title of the thread. You can have a poetic language in a narrative. But that does not make the narrative a poem.
And finally, many poems produce the same feeling, not necessarily being the same poems. Why wouldnt be possible to produce the same feelings in different languages if it is possible to achive with different words? A rose by another name... But basically, even if you translate your poems from arabic to english, it is another poem. Another work. They have ties, but they are not the same. Do not be much clutched to the physical aspet of a work. What survives is the ephemeral. We all know homer. We barelly know his greek.
Again You're reducing poetry to sense and feeling. All human beings share the same feelings of loss, death , love, alienation, etc, only with variation in degree and emphasis. you can find one millions poem on death , but what differentiates one poem from another is not the feeling of death , but that each poem evokes that feeling in a specific way. Here lies the originality of the poem and the work of art . In the " how , not in the " what ".
What you call ties between the original poem and the translated poem might me the fancy of the translator himself . Who could tell that what does the poet mean by his poem ? How could you rely on the translator's understanding of the poem? Does a poem really mean sth apart from its form?Do we have really a meaning in poetry that could be translated ?
Last edited by caddy_caddy; 12-23-2012 at 03:00 PM.
Sorry, Caddy, I just cannot follow your color system. Forgive me
How it is the oposite? If someone translate a poem and afterwards dies, no longer translating, the fact he will not be making more translations invalidate his work? And Elizabeth Barrett earlier works included The Batle of Marathon, would matters if she didnt anything before?
Yes, they are saying their creation is based on another creation. That is all.Now, how can be argued that a translation must preserve the form if the language is a form? You are obviously breaking the form at some level. But, yes, it is another poem, translation is a creative process.
yeh, they are changing everything, breaking everything ; It's indeed another poem , another thing, yet they call it but its orginal name and orginal author!!
Again You're reducing poetry to sense and feeling. All human beings share the same feelings of loss, death , love, alienation, etc, only with variation in degree and emphasis. you can find one millions poem on death , but what differentiates one poem from another is not the feeling of death , but that each poem evokes that feeling in a specific way. Here lies the originality of the poem and the work of art . In the " how , not in the " what ".
I am not reducing. I assume that the form is meant to be changed. It is a hopeless battle to preserve it perfectly. The experience then, it is impossible. So, what a translation, any, can do is be faithful to the feeling and the form only as possible.
You cannot assume anything about anyone experience with a text. You can just do your own betrayal.What you call ties between the original poem and the translated poem might me the fancy of the translator himself . Who could tell that what does the poet mean by his poem ? How could you rely on the translator's understanding of the poem? Does a poem really mean sth apart from its form?Do we have really a meaning in poetry that could be translated ?
Sorry , I had a problem with the connection so I posted very quickly .
I mean the opposite with respect to this statement "Once a person is translating poetry, he is writting poetry, therefore he is a poet." Who is the person qualified to translate poetry? In the academy they teach you languages only. My sister lives in the states and she's getting a degree in translation. The one who is labeled as a translator and has a degree is not necesseraly someone who has the talent to translate poetry. This is a talent not a skill you can acquire.
yes , we know it's an act of betrayal . But why we justify it?
Do we have right to forge a painting or change anything in it ?
Why do we deal with a painting with such a reverence ; a painting is almost sth sacred to us ?!
What's the difference between a painting and a poem ?
Dali's language in painting in inaccessible to some for instance ,do I have right to change his paintings to make them accessible to those who don't understand Dali ?The hell with you whether you understand or not . Dali is Dali .
Poetry is no less sacred than painting . Why do we deal with two pieces of art with different ways ?!! That's what I really fail to understand!!
Last edited by caddy_caddy; 12-24-2012 at 07:25 AM.
It is both. All poets had to develop their skill in a way or another. Does not matter much where they studied, but at some point, they did. Anyways, a Poet is someone who writes poetry, right? Since we agree that when you translate a poem, you are writting a new poem, then writing poetry, how come the translator isnt a poet?
Because all art is a betrayal of the creation. There is nothing in art that isnt a copy of something. So, a translation is just a copy of a copy, Judas stabbing himself.yes , we know it's an act of betrayal . But why we justify it?
Well, not talking about legal rights, but we do forge, copy, change paintings for a long time.Do we have right to forge a painting or change anything in it ?
Are them? We do have several holy texts as the bible or the holy quran, but how many holy paintings? When an image is considered a relic, such the shroud of turim, it is not even considered a painting or an artwork. In fact, some religions deal with imagens as something almost profane. No, I think you are confuding the way we threat paintings... In the past, a master of painting was more one that could copy former masters than create something original.Why do we deal with a painting with such a reverence ; a painting is almost sth sacred to us ?!
I know this is a rethorical question, but historically the capacity to write/read was always threated with more reverence than the capacity to paint. It is the language of law, science, philosophy, religion. It was kept from the general population for quite long.What's the difference between a painting and a poem ?
Well, Dali is a good argument about the right to change, copy, modify paintings, right? Anyways, we do copy and change Dali all the time. The original itself is limited to a few viwers, but just seek on internet. And those are copies, not always with the same size, color patterns, etc. This is making Dali more accessible.Dali's language in painting in inaccessible to some for instance ,do I have right to change his paintings to make them accessible to those who don't understand Dali ?The hell with you whether you understand or not . Dali is Dali .
It is not poetry vs. painting. It is any individual artwork. Why do we threat Ode to west wind differently than Code Da Vince ? Or the Holy Quran? Because each artwork has its own story, own effect and this does not depends on the object only, or the author, but all public that deals with the object, all artists and artworks that do it - be it a translation, be it a reference - that pretty much keep the artwork alive. Any work of art that is frozen on its own "Originality" is bound to be forgotten as it cannot be representative for the future. Immortality is lost and will not be back in 3 days.Poetry is no less sacred than painting . Why do we deal with two pieces of art with different ways ?!! That's what I really fail to understand!!
Further, why would we condem to death some artworks because their language was lost?
Caddy Caddy, I agree strongly in 95-99 percent of translations, however some translations are masterpieces in their own right, such as: the Chapman and Pope translations of Homer, Dryden's Virgil, Fairfax's Tasso, Golding's Ovid, etc.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote